By Cyrus Safdari | Iran Affairs | April 10, 2014
Read this so-called “primer” on Iran’s nuclear talk over at Jim Lobe’s website.
Note that there’s no mention whatsoever that the US had until now demanded that Iran first give up enrichment, and had used that demand to prevent any talks from moving forward?
Yes, that’s a bit of fact that they would rather you forget. Just like how they’d rather you forget precisely why the Iranians restarted enrichment — notice no references to the “empty box in pretty wrapping” that killed the EU3 negotiations with Iran under the Paris Agreement. Remember, that deal died, according to Peter Osborne, because the US demanded that the EU3 never acknowledge Iran’s right to enrichment, again.
In fact this particular author over at Lobe’s website totally erases Khatami from history books* and claims that negotiations began in 2003 under president Ahmadinejad… who was elected in 2005. In 2003, the negotiations were undertaken by Khatami.
The “timeline” he links to by the Arms Control Association is similarly selective: the entire EU “empty box in pretty wrapping” affair which is the subject of Peter Oborne’s book is left out as is the fact that the Iranian negotiations were always stymied by the US “zero enrichment demand” but instead the author promotes the false narrative that it was Iran’s election Rouhani that allowed the current negotiations to happen, rather that the US giving up the zero enrichment demand. And also left out is the fact that Iran approached AQ Khan only after the US interfered with numerous legal Iranian nuclear contracts, in violation of Iran’s rights as recognized by the NPT. And also left out is the fact that the allegations against Iran turned out to be largely from Israel. The author pretends that the IAEA somehow endorsed the NIE’s conclusion that Iran had a nuclear program prior to 2003 — whereas El Baradei was explicitly clear that the IAEA had no evidence that Iran EVER had a nuclear weapons program. And finally this piece misrepresents the Additional Protocol issue — the IAEA does not verify the exclusively peaceful nature of ANY country’s nuclear program unless the Additional Protocol is in force, and in that Iran is no different than Argentina Brazil Egypt and many other nations — except that Iran not only voluntarily implemented the AP but exceeded it for more than 3 years with no evidence of any nukes found. The author is missing the entire point as he has not read Gareth Porter’s book: the nuclear issue was always just a pretext for regime change. It was never about trying to “prevent breakout” — 40 nations already have breakout capability, meaning that Iran has joined 1 out of 4 nations on the planet.
Jim Lobe should know better.
*Aletho News notes that the Lobelog post has been revised to correct the mistaken Iranian presidential terms. A Google cached version of the paragraph that was revised is posted below:
Iran has been negotiating on and off with the European Union (specifically the UK, France, and Germany) and on related but separate issues with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) since 2003, under then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In 2006, the talks were widened to include the US, Russia, and China, though the US refused to fully participate until Iran met certain pre-conditions like an indefinite halt to its uranium enrichment program.